Bassetlaw District Council v Secretary of State for Housing

In a statutory planning challenge, a neighbourhood plan’s objectives are not equivalent to its policies. A development may conflict with the plan only by reference to the detailed policies governing development and land use. Objectives may assist in interpreting those policies, but cannot create an additional restriction absent from them.

A planning inspector need not address every argument expressly. The decision must fairly deal with the contentious issues and give sufficient reasons to explain the outcome. A statutory challenge cannot be used to introduce a new justification for refusing permission that was not advanced before the inspector. An error causing no practical difference will not justify relief.

Bassetlaw District Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a Planning Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under section 78 against refusal of outline planning permission for residential development at Sutton-cum-Lound. The Council also challenged the related award of costs.

The Council argued that the inspector had failed to address a refusal reason based on Objective 1 of the neighbourhood plan and had misinterpreted that plan as permitting development outside three identified sites. The Secretary of State contended that the inspector had adequately addressed the substance of the objection and that any omission was immaterial.

1. The statutory challenge was dismissed. The related challenge to the costs award was also dismissed.
2. The court applied the principles summarised in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin). Planning policies must be construed sensibly in context. Excessive legalism is inappropriate, and the court should avoid treating planning policy as a statute or contract.
3. A neighbourhood plan’s stated aims and objectives may cast light on the interpretation of its policies, but they are not a substitute for the policies themselves. A development’s conflict with an objective does not, without more, establish conflict with the plan. The court followed the distinction drawn in R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 567 and applied the approach described in Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 2386 (Admin).
4. The inspector’s decision, read as a whole, sufficiently addressed the Council’s objections. Although he did not expressly refer to the second refusal reason, he considered the neighbourhood plan’s relevant policies and concluded that the development conformed with them. The Council’s case before the inspector had focused on character, appearance, housing supply and the weight of the neighbourhood plan, rather than asserting that development outside the three preferred sites was categorically prohibited.
5. It was impermissible for the Council to recharacterise its original reason for refusal as a different policy-based objection and use that recharacterisation to advance a new justification on the statutory challenge. In any event, the proposed interpretation of the neighbourhood plan was too narrow. The plan contemplated that other sites might be developed, while prioritising the three identified sites.
6. Even if the inspector’s failure to state expressly that Objective 1 was not a valid independent reason for refusal amounted to an error of law, it was minor and could not justify relief. Remittal would merely result in the same decision being supplemented by an additional sentence.